Slashdot Mirror


AIDS Vaccine Breakthrough

Doc Ruby writes "Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in MD, USA announced they've disrupted the means by which HIV stops the immune system from attacking it. From the article: 'Scientists say they have found a way to disarm the AIDS virus in research that could lead to a vaccine. Researchers have discovered that if they eliminate a cholesterol membrane surrounding the virus, HIV cannot disrupt communication among disease-fighting cells and the immune system returns to normal. [...] "By stealing cholesterol from the envelope of the virus, we can neutralize the subversion," said Graham. "We've broken the code; we can shut down the type of interference that HIV is having on the immune system."'"

54 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. The future is here at last by RenHoek · · Score: 2, Funny

    With the recent deluge of articles on curing aids, cancer and even the common cold, is the future finally here? Are we going Deus Ex in a few years now?

    1. Re:The future is here at last by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a terrible feeling that in the future we'll be seeing cyborg homeopaths and astrologers traveling in flying cars with little fish decals proudly displayed on the back.

    2. Re:The future is here at last by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not sure about the recent part, there have always been miracle cancer cures just around the corner for as long as I have been old enough to read the news.
      This is promising, but wake me up when they actually cure/prevent the disease in a person with this.

      And what does curing diseases have to do with cyborg augmentations?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:The future is here at last by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      Actually HIV may really be on its way out ..modern treatments are to the point where you can live a normal healthy life and die of something else. Well as long as you maintain your health insurance anyway.

      HIV will probably be cured over the next decade .. it will not be a single breakthrough though it will be gradual so it won't seem like you woke up one day and HIV is cured .. it'll be like 15 to 20 years from now while sitting on your couch you'll suddenly wonder "whatever happened to that disease everyone was afraid of, HIV?"

    4. Re:The future is here at last by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because that knowledge was so effective in nearly eradicating chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, trichomoniasis....

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:The future is here at last by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

      That and using other people's needles for injecting drugs. It's just plain dumb. Might even say it's evolution in action.

    6. Re:The future is here at last by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fun fact: that was largely because at first it spread amongst gay men quicker then heterosexuals, and the prevailing attitude was "great, this will finally get rid of the gays!"

      Thus governments assumed they didn't need any sort of public education campaigns about it.

      Then at some point, once someone realized straight people also have promiscuous sex (and there are tons more of them so it didn't seem like an epidemic till much later) did we decide to do anything about it.

    7. Re:The future is here at last by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      This goes beyond simple theories and pipe dreams. This was actively performed in a lab and the process is well documented. This actually pokes holes in the cholesterol membrane using a chemical called beta-cyclodextrin. This chemical binds to this special type of cholesterol around an HIV cell, which had two desired effects. It prevented the HIV virus from hyper-activating PDC's (the mechanism which damages the immune response itself), and it seems it also damaged it's ability to replicate. The chemical actually leaves the membrane riddled with holes due to this binding process.

      This is very promising in that the function they are disrupting is at the very root of what makes HIV effective in avoiding the immune system. Once this happens, the immune system is able to respond to the virus much like it would any other typical pathogen.

      The one thing that wasn't made clear was what the impact will be to those who are already infected. It sounds as if this could potentially be useful to existing infections as well but I haven't seen any statements to that effect as of yet.

    8. Re:The future is here at last by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      I agree, and to me anyways it sounds even more like a potential cure then a preventative measure.
      But I have heard of lots of miracle drugs going to even human trials, drugs that show huge success in labs (it does not mean that it will actually turn out to have significant real world effect).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:The future is here at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had this chicken pizza the other day that was phenomenal.

      The secret? A small amount of feta cheese, it turns out. The chopped tomato didn't hurt either.

      Feta cheese, it turns out, isn't a very good idea. The secret? It promotes the health of the cholesterol membrane that HIV uses to disrupt the immune system, leading to quicker onset of AIDS.

    10. Re:The future is here at last by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not funny, Insightful. We could have Star Trek-level technology and we'd still suffer with the awful legacy of man's basest instincts and the old cognitive bugs from our days stalking prey and eluding predators in the jungle.

      If an AIDS vaccine were available on the market tomorrow, the right-wingers would want to stop it from being distributed, worried that it will cause autism or take the danger out of sexual promiscuity (see: HPV vaccine). Scientologists would worry that it will bring volcano spirits back into your soul or something. The alternative medicine crowd would say it's useless and a Big Pharma scam.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:The future is here at last by hxnwix · · Score: 2

      make it lose containment. It's completely useless ... after that.

      Maybe someone listened to my idea.

      Indeed, no researcher anywhere has ever considered attacking the AIDS virus cell wall. Step up and receive your Nobel prize, sir.

      Anyway, that's not even what's happening. The virus doesn't lose containment. To put this in your sort of parlance, this is more akin to disrupting a cloaking field than causing shields to be lowered. This cyclodextrine stuff uses photon torpedoes to alter the subspace field used to generate the cloaking field and only the cloaking field (ie the chloresterol layer) and not the virus vessel's shields (ie virus wall).

    12. Re:The future is here at last by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      Me? Promiscuous? Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    13. Re:The future is here at last by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      I hear this argument all the time, but I think this counter-argument is much more effective.

      If a drug company develops a working cure for HIV/AIDS, they can do no wrong for the next generation. They'll eventually own most other drug companies. Just imagine the commercials.
      "You could buy brand A aspirin or your could by GloboCureCorp's aspirin. Remember GloboCureCorp's fantastic success with the plague of the 20th century. Who are you going to trust your headache to? GloboCureCorp's aspirin, brought to you by the people who cured AIDS."

      A cure for AIDS is a virtual license to print money. No one would suppress that if they developed it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Nope, it is still in the future by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article hints at a way to attack the virus in the lab. There is absolutely no attempt yet to do the same in a human body. Can it be done safely? While the article says the cholestrerol membrane is not the same as the one that occurs in things related to coronary disease, is it maybe in use somewhere else? Wouldn't be much point in an AIDS vacine that causes you to fall apart in a puddle.

    But the cure for AIDS has been here for a long time. How many people do you know with AIDS? I am not just making another joke about slashdotters not having sex, which isn't funny at all damn you!, but am serious. AIDS was this terrible nightmare from a by gone era when some people who made a lot of noise in the media had unprotected sex with everyone else in the group.

    When people stopped doing that, AIDS practically disappeared to the point that young people again think it is safe to have unprotected sex with anyone.

    The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.

    It has always struck me as odd that it tooks AIDS to get people to start using condoms. Like the other diseases out there are not highly dangerous. This story itself is more likely to kill more people before it can start to cure as people think, "Oh there is a cure, we can fuck around again with no condom". This was the result of all the previous aids blocker stories were people interpreted it as a cure and so didn't care anymore.

    Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.

    As for Africa, the aids epidemic is a symthom not the disease itself. Remove aids and the causes for mass infections remain.

    Good news that there is a potential new avenue to create a medicine BUT it not yet here and the underlying problems have not been tackled. Humanity is still its old self.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by hedwards · · Score: 2

      One doesn't need abstinence in order to be HIV negative for an entire life. One just needs to get regularly tested, use protection and keep sex partners to some sort of sane number. And avoid sharing needles. Then there's the rare occurence of contracting HIV from a transfusion, but that's a risk that's sufficiently low for most people to not even bother worrying bout. If people would do that, then HIV wouldn't be common and would probably just die out in a matter of time.

    2. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by durrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cure for AIDS, which stands for Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome(meaning, that you have it when you have AQUIRED a immunological deficiency in case the name didn't hind at that for you) Is retroviral drugs.

      In case you have problem with neuances i'll spell it out for you. A HIV infection if left untreated will result in AIDS, at which point you're pretty much toast. A HIV infection on its own does not however qualify as AIDS with modern retroviral treatment(or the intial stage without treatment) will keep viral counts low enough that you do not Aquire any ImmunoDefciency.

      Now in fact, that's not a cure for AIDS, it's a postponing of it. As for the cure to HIV, it's not condoms. Condoms are a preventive measure against HIV, not a cure.
      Now if you excuse me I'll have to crash the moon into earth before I have to repeat this rant any more times.

    3. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by XavierGr · · Score: 2

      AIDS was this terrible nightmare from a by gone era when some people who made a lot of noise in the media had unprotected sex with everyone else in the group.

      AIDS is still a nightmare in third word countries. Don't dismiss it just because symptoms in the developed world are relatively scarce.

    4. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is there is this nasty thing called "religion" whose adherents keep on insisting that condoms are somehow wrong, and that sex is for procreation only.

      A big part of the problem is all those religious jerks that are coming to those third world countries to insist on that. Fortunately they're not getting all that much traction in civilized places, but in third world countries it's devastating.

      Add to that ridiculous notions held by people in some of those countries, like that sex with a virgin will cure you, and you have one horrible mess as a result.

      Kicking out all those missionaries and bringing in some proper education would do wonders.

    5. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2

      The cure is latex, it works, it has been tried and tested. Not science, or as you put it, the futures fault you refuse to take your medicine.

      ...

      Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose.

      If rotten food tasted a whole helluvalot better than safe food, they would.

    6. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      The religious argument is "Listen, we think you should only have sex with the person you're married with, and you should also procreate." You can agree with this or not (I don't, for the record), but you can't twist it.

      No, this is wrong. It implies that contraception in marriage is okay. Maybe if you have children at some point, as your sentence isn't very clear on that.

      The religious argument is:

      1. Sex only in a marriage
      2. Each sex act must be unitive and procreative. You're not allowed to artificially interfer with the procreative part.

      Natual infertility or menopause is fine, not having sex is fine. Condoms, pills, IUDs or anything else of the sort is not. In my understanding, any time you have sex there must exist a possibility of pregnancy.

      Problem is, this doesn't work. Solutions to AIDS must be based on how people actually behave, not how some church a lot of people don't adhere to anyway thinks they should be behaving. Like Feynman said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

    7. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by MrNaz · · Score: 2

      Don't go lumping all religions together. There is nothing in Islam that says contraception isn't allowed, and there's plenty of literature (both recent and ancient) on the subject that says that sex can and should be fun.

      --
      I hate printers.
    8. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the missionaries are letting perfect be the enemy of good. Their perfect plan for the elimination of STDs, when executed imperfectly, leads to a horrific spread of STDs (since they don't recommend condoms, so every slip-up has a great chance of spreading STDs and causing unwanted pregnancies). A scientist's less ambitious, imperfect plan for the reduction of STD spreading, when executed imperfectly, will still cut down on the spread of STDs (since people might "forget" to use a condom, but at least they'll know they should and won't see it as a bad thing. The people who are infected will have trouble spreading it to other partners most of the time, unlike the "just stay monogamous, pretty please?" plan.).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      If people did exactly what you're claiming Missionaries are saying, then AIDS would disappear in a generation or two.

      I repeat: solutions must be reality based.

      Yes, if they did, it would work. But people don't, which has been proven over and over. So a realistic solution must start from accepting that fact and finding a solution that allows for promiscuity.

      And in the case of Africa, where culturally it is quite permissible to gang rape women repeatedly, the "don't have sex outside of marriage" message is actually better than leaving the status quo, don't you think?

      What, you seriously think that if somebody who would commit rape hears the "no sex outside marriage" message they're going to obey it?

      People who decide to rape already are going against mountains of morals and laws, adding an extra one isn't going to make much of a difference. They already have found some way to justify their actions, they'll find one to justify adultery just fine.

      Here the problem runs much deeper and isn't going to be solved that easily. A solution has to include education, law enforcement and cultural changes.

      What I find completely interesting, is that people like yourself have continue to promote women as sex objects, under the guise of "woman's rights".

      I'm intrigued, explain how does that work?

    10. Re:Nope, it is still in the future by instagib · · Score: 2

      The programming references were good, but I think I still need a car analogy.

  3. Re:Cure for aids already discovered by ponchietto · · Score: 2

    What about the other 10%?

  4. Only one to protect yourself by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Abstinence. Don't be tempted by sex unless you are 100% absolutely sure. I would suggest waiting until marriage.

    1. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      That and "Don't share needles".

    2. Re:Only one to protect yourself by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

      What about those folks that can't get married?

    3. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abstinence is the worst of all the safe-sex choices.

      The best way to describe it is, "It is 100% effective, when used correctly. When not used correctly it is 0% effective, and among females and males between 14-25 it has a very high failure rate."

      How many non-Slashdot users do you know that are 25 years old and never had sex?

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    4. Re:Only one to protect yourself by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This only works if:
      1. You can actually stick to it, including those hormone-addled teenage years.
      2. Your spouse (spouses, if you divorce and remarry) managed it as well.
      3. You manage to avoid other means of infection. Rape, accidential exposure to blood.

      It's also rather untidy, having to alter your life in order to avoid disease. Much tidier to simply remove the disease through science.

    5. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

      The problem with this advice – and pretty much every other "just say no" solution to a social or medical problem – is that it ignores human nature... and the empirically documented fact that it simply doesn't work. Some people inevitably will have unprotected sex, will share needles, and will do everything else that they're told not to do. A "solution" that ignores this fact is one that is not 100% effective.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Only one to protect yourself by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I don't like that bit about the means justifying the end. Sometimes it does. A famous example would be Typhoid Mary. Even after she was found to be a asymptomatic carrier, she reacted with complete denial - continuing to work as a cook, leaving a trail of death in her wake, yet never accepting that she was the cause. After all attempts to convince her of the danger she posed failed, forced quarantine was just the only option left - if she had been allowed to keep her freedom, she would have without doubt have unintentionally killed many more people.

      Quarentine wouldn't have worked on HIV anyway. The disease was first identified in the US, but had it's origin in Africa. By the time it was identified, it was already too late to contain.

    7. Re:Only one to protect yourself by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Marriage isn't a magical barrier. It's the monogamy that comes along with marriage that protects you. A married man who visits the red light district every weekend is probably gonna catch something nasty. A gay man who can't marry, but only has sex with a few partners before settling down with one is likely going to be safe.

    8. Re:Only one to protect yourself by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Best advice that seems to work in Africa is similar, ABC. Abstinence Before marriage, Condom if you can't resist. Drastically reduced new cases of AIDS in the countries that used it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's... 100% backwards. If i had sex with a hundred women (yeah, i'm on slashdot, i wish) got AIDS and died, but that sex resulted in a half dozen kids then natural selection would favor me a hell of a lot more than someone who practiced complete abstinence.

      Natural selection only "cares" (yes, i'm anthropomorphizing it, get over it) if you have kids and how many. It doesn't give a damn if you survive the process or not.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    10. Re:Only one to protect yourself by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell that to Isaac Asimov, who died due to AIDS caused by a blood transfusion.

    11. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Laugh all you like, but if people actually took that advice a few years ago we wouldn't have AIDS anymore.

      That and "Don't share needles".

      Spoken like a person who lives in a glass bubble.

      We are sexual people. We don't just "turn sex off", that is not how we work.

      Instead of teaching Abstinence, we should of been teaching about proper sex health, birth control, and protection, instead of just "hoping" people will not have sex. Because people do NOT stop having sex, no matter how much you ask them not to. Can you grasp that simple concept? The religious freaks haven't.

      As for sharing needles, you once again, don't know shit.

      Why did people share needles? Because they were so fucking hard to get. Until the last 10 or so years where they have had "Needle Exchanges" and pharmacies adopting of letting anyone buy needles, it was very hard and expensive to get clean works. And when your a junkie, your money goes to your dope, not to making sure you have clean works.

      Our policies help made these problems, not the people who were stuck because of the policies.

      That fact that you are currently 4 Insightful only shows how stupid most people are about these matters. It's easy to blame others, but the blame lies with all of us for not taking care of the less fortunate in our community, not at them because they have problems that we prefer to ignore.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:Only one to protect yourself by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      You can get HIV without engaging in high-risk behavior. Just ask any woman who contracted the virus from monogamous sex with her husband... who was secretly having unsafe sex with other people.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    13. Re:Only one to protect yourself by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Yes, but you can't just dismiss the fact that people who have lots of unprotected sex tend to have more kids than those who practice abstinence. Abstinence is great for protecting yourself as an individual, but you can't just assume that natural selection is going to favor that strategy too.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  5. Re:About time. by Huntr · · Score: 2

    I liked this article from a few days ago about using AIDS to kill cancer. http://nyti.ms/ouwqci Seemed poetic or something.

  6. Re:Real or hype? by edumacator · · Score: 2

    This is not a story about vaccine trials, just a "wouldn't it be great if ..."

    The title is a bit misleading, but the content isn't. Knowing how to disarm the virus is a significant development. It's certainly not the same thing as a cure, but it is more than hype.

  7. Give it a month. by idbeholda · · Score: 2

    We won't see or hear about these breakthroughs again because there won't be any "profitable" method of distribution.

  8. It's a big deal by mattr · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

    Can't understand how anybody can post snarky troll crap at all.
    Did you know there are over 30 million people with HIV and 1 million are in the U.S., and it's apparently accelerating maybe?

    These researchers probably deserve the nobel and the medal of honor. Here's hoping that something amazing comes out of this.

    Of course the tangent everyone will want to know about is this cholesterol film around the virus they are disrupting.. and a naive question about whether there is something simple that can be done to reduce this cholesterol and weaken the virus' immune disruption activity, before waiting years for the real thing.

  9. What do you think latex referred to? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Informative

    I say several times UNPROTECTED sex. I mention latex explicitly. Was I being that subtle in referring to condoms?

    And the underlying cause in Africa is not sex, it is rape. Mass rape. It is an cultural attitude to women that is getting ever more brutal.

    Read a little about conditions in for instance South Africa before you go all indignant.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:What do you think latex referred to? by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 2

      And the underlying cause in Africa is not sex, it is rape. Mass rape. It is an cultural attitude to women that is getting ever more brutal.

      Read a little about conditions in for instance South Africa before you go all indignant.

      Source?
      I live in Mozambique and, while there are definitely higher rape rates than in the USA, they DO NOT account for the HIV rates. I can tell you with certainty that there is a culture of promiscuous sex that runs rampant despite the knowledge of high HIV infection rates. It is not uncommon in the least for a man or a woman to have 10 partners within a month. From my experience (I lived in Botswana for 3 years the highest AIDS rate country in the world before moving here to Mozambique) consensual sex is absolutely the underlying cause for high HIV rates.

  10. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Africa is both the epicenter for the disease, and is a poverty-stricken continent where people need to have families, and relatively large ones at that, in order to be taken care of in their old age. These features are sufficient to explain the sustained high infection rate without resorting to the racist twaddle you're apparently peddling. "

    Oh boy, you're so full of bullshit.

    "Medical experts have shown a clear association between HIV exposure and coerced sex. Wives who suffer violence if they request condom use or faithfulness are at higher risk of AIDS than unmarried women and girls. That is why defeating the AIDS pandemic requires a second radical proposition: that African women and girls have the right to protection under their own countries' laws.

    Why is this concept radical? Because public justice systems in many AIDS-burdened countries are broken or virtually inaccessible to poor girls and women. Rape and beatings are simply the norm, and deterrence and accountability for these crimes in Africa is as rare as AIDS drugs used to be."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300716.html

    "Rape, including child rape, is increasing at shocking rates in South Africa. Sexual violence against children, including the raping of infants, has increased 400% over the past decade (Dempster, 2002). According to a report by BBC news, a female born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped in her lifetime than learning how to read (Dempster, 2002). When South Africa became a democracy in 1994, there were already 18,801 cases of rape per year, but by 2001 there were 24,892 (Dempster, 2002). Numbers vary by different institutions, but are nevertheless extremely troubling. The Institute of Race Relations found that more than 52,000 rapes were reported in 2000, and 40% of the victims were under age 18 (du Venage, 2002). The University of South Africa reports that 1 million women and children are raped there each year (South Africa: Focus on the Virgin Myth, 2002)."

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/444213
    http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm

    Also, big families don't cause rape, you can't catch an infection from a clean partner no matter how many times you have sex.

  11. Re:Working at FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I label all my packages HIV, I've never had one run through with a forklift or drop-kicked into a truck. Works great!

  12. Re:Real or hype? by JonySuede · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in Canada, they had a working tokamak producing an iota more than it consumed, while in steady state. When they reach that point the gov killed the project. Yes, the net balance was still negative, as it consumed a shit load of energy to get into that state and for some untold reasons, the researchers were not allowed to run it long enough to achieve a positive net balance. The tokamak name was Tokamak de Varennes.

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  13. Re:Such an awesome crowdsourcing success! by EPAstor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong breakthrough, I'm sorry to say. That one was an analysis of a protein that all retroviruses (including HIV) have - this one is an actual (albeit in vitro) treatment method. This paper is in a completely different direction, and arguably one step further along its path... and no, FoldIt was not involved in this particular breakthrough. Both are cool, but not the same work.

  14. People are still having sex by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

    "This AIDS thing's not working." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTjhhYN04Y

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  15. Re:And what about the African population control? by MrNaz · · Score: 2

    Being from South Africa and having worked in health care, I can confidently tell you that the only people who think dumbass shit like "vaccines are a government plot" are "educated" people from first world countries.

    --
    I hate printers.
  16. Re:Lazy journalism. by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 2

    Yes, AIDS is a Syndrome caused by HIV which is a Virus. Your being a pedant served no purpose other than making an ass of yourself. There is no lazy journalism going on here.

  17. Feed a fever? by choke · · Score: 2

    So, is stealing the cholesterol from the outer membrane of the virus fall under the definition of starving a cold?

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"